Friday, April 22, 2011

[Your Gamer "Gamer_2k4" was all like "I will show an XKCD comic to a hostage every thirty minutes until you post my review" so I was like "okay fine, you fucking terrorist," which I guess is letting the terrorists win but really. Here is his guest review. -Ed.]

I hate this comic. I hate xkcd. I hate Randall Munroe. I've been ticked off by xkcd before, but strip 889 just completely blows my mind. I'm not even going to reproduce it here; if you haven't seen it, just count yourself one of the lucky ones, because it's so numbingly stupid that reading it is akin to being smashed in the head with a backhoe. I'd rather get raped by a porcupine than read this balls-awful comic. I'd rather eat a box of thumbtacks, I'd rather swim in a septic truck, I'd rather use a wood chipper as a hat than see that complete and total piece of suck again.

It's just...it's BAD! It's not insightful, it's not funny, it's not well drawn, it's downright stupid, and it seriously sounds like Randall wrote this while on some heavy drugs. You know, normally I try to put in a few good words about each xkcd I review. It would be wrong to say I'm trying to find the hidden gems; it's probably more like searching for whole kernals of corn in a pile of manure. But this one has no such corn. This is just a big, sloppy, puddle of diarrhea.

I'm sorry, that was disgusting. Still, I'm not entirely sure it's inaccurate. The message of this comic is little more than "Turtles don't have worries. Boy, they're lucky!" What the heck are you talking about, Randall? You don't have worries, either! You spend 15 minutes a week scribbling on a sheet of paper, throw it online, and have thousands of people all trying to suck your nonexistent balls the next morning. You could put out anything and the masses would still be there, waiting expectantly, mouths open, panting like dogs. Teachers put up your comics in their classrooms. Blogs link to you regularly. Internet memes have been spawned because of your worthless excuse for a webcomic. It's just one big "find Randy's dick and suck it" contest on the internet, and you're the center of attention. You make more money than you have any right to with this strip, you're considered a guest of honor at conventions, you can probably sleep 10 hours each night, and you still have a 13 hours every single day (rounding down) to jerk off to fantasies of Megan. You've got it made in the shade, buddy! YOU'RE the one who's got it "figured out"!

A turtle doesn't have any worries? It's a FREAKING TURTLE! It doesn't have to brain to comprehend things like stress, it doesn't have a reason to comprehend things like stress, and it sure as heck doesn't have any files to delete! YOU are that turtle, Randall. You go on with your stupid, sheltered little life, completely protected from anything even close to stress, no worries in the world, just sitting there thinking, "hurp I'm a Randall." You know what? You ARE a Randall, and 50 years from now you'll STILL be a Randall, just sitting there, rock-stupid, oblivious to real people with real concerns, and thinking that your little world is all there is. I hate you.

it's actually pretty misinformed and speciest to assume that non-human animals "don't have brains to understand stress" or "don't have worries". basic ethology -- or simply paying attention to any pet -- dispels this myth as surely as paying attention to the world dispels creationism.

and i don't think the analogy is frivolous; there is a very strong component of "animals are meat machines for us to use" in christianity. it's right there in genesis, and the alleged source of all human value -- the fictional soul -- is said to be absent from non-human animals.

par for the course for christianity's "we are super special you guys" neurosis.

Science teaches us we're the best too, Chiggy Chugga, and that's because it's true. We evolved into geniuses and developed the tools to turn the entire animal kingdom into our own smorgasbord. We created complex languages and the capcity for history that comes with it. We are so far ahead of those animal schmucks that they'll never catch up. You can go talk to the animals all you want, Chiggy Dolittle, I'm going to stay on the top of the food chain where I belong.

Human success in dominating the food chain is based on two main factors: 1) Opposable thumbs to effectively manufacture tools 2) Language to successfully communicate. Animals such as birds have been shown to develop tools for their own use in gaining food etc. That's right, DEVELOP, i.e. build them from sticks and leaves. There's no reason to believe emotion is unique to humans, just because we're the only ones with detailed language. How the fuck do you know that "spiders can't feel happiness"? Have you asked one? At worst that's a blatant lie to win an internet argument and at best it's indoctrinated misunderstanding of basic logic. You can't know something unless you have SOME sort of indication that it's true.

anon he brought up Christianity out of the blue and insulted it (i know i sound kind of melodramatic.) it seemed quite trolly, although i have seen "internet atheists" act like this before. also his name is chiggy chugga.

the idea of being prejudiced towards an animal seems kind of strange to me.

I am a fan of XKCD, but I've been reading this blog to see a different point of view. I've got to say that this argument really didn't work.

I don't believe that you understood the point of the argument that this comic was making. The point was to say that turtles do have it lucky for the very reason that you pointed out in this blog post: "It's a FREAKING TURTLE! It doesn't have to brain to comprehend things like stress, it doesn't have a reason to comprehend things like stress, and it sure as heck doesn't have any files to delete!"

That is the point that Randall was attempting to make in that comic. Turtles don't have to deal with the stuff that humans do, and in a way that makes them lucky.

Also, it seems as if you need to learn how to write an argument. It seems as if a majority of your arguments are just the ad hominem logical fallacy. If you spend a majority of your words insulting the person and not the comic, then people aren't going to take you seriously.

Not quite anonymous 10:25.Query? You're not a Canadian cunt are you?To save you some trouble our active blogs are not primarily in English and are viewable only with a costly subscription. Google and Bing will not even afford you a snippet. The crap is all copyrighted now!We sold out I reckon.

Eff Greg,I grow weary of the game.

Mike Becheek Gloom said:

"....If you spend a majority of your words insulting the person and not the comic, then people aren't going to take you seriously....."

Which would be a problem if the premise of this blog was to be taken seriously. And the ad hominem attack, though a logical fallacy, is a respectable rhetorical device.

The cunt said, "Whatever it takes".The cock said, "As long as no one is remunerated for it."The cunt said, "Whatever it takes".The cock replied, "We must not use any people with whom we disapprove, or whose motives are suspect, or who demand to be paid for their work."The cunt said, "Whatever it takes".The cock sniffed, "I hope we are not going to have to do any marketing?"The cunt said, "Whatever it takes".The cock riposted, "Our work must be designed in purity, perfect in theory as well as in execution, able to meet all the needs of all potential users from now 'til eternity."The cunt said, "Whatever it takes".The cock throbbed in annoyance and insisted, "We will find the one best way, and persuade the swarthy masses, who have yet to be enlightened, to adopt it."The cunt said, "Whatever it takes".The cock, in his best stentorian voice, "And those who don't do it our way don't matter as they hardly exist. We'll do it for our folks, and ignore the vile and unwashed majority, even though they outnumber us fifty to one. Eventually they will adopt our genius."The cunt said, "Whatever it takes".The cock pursed his testicles in exasperation at the cunt, "Have you no principles? Are you willing to work for hire, patent and copyright your work, sell it for money, hire people to help you, sell it to evil governments and huge malignent corporations, conform to international standards adopted by evil . . . ?"The cunt lunged, snapped its labia, and devoured the cock, and muttered, "Whatever it takes".Then the cunt set to work, getting the job done.

"That is the point that Randall was attempting to make in that comic. Turtles don't have to deal with the stuff that humans do, and in a way that makes them lucky."

Perhaps so, but he made the point devoid of any insight or humor. Randall made an observation that's abundantly obvious, and the resulting comic was completely pointless. That's my problem with it. He might as well have had a single sentence that said "I wish I was a tree so that I never got stressed out." That's just stupid.

"He might as well have had a single sentence that said "I wish I was a tree so that I never got stressed out." That's just stupid."

Pardon me for taking Randall's side here, but I have to defend what little artistic integrity he has. I don't think he'd ever sink that low. He may be lazy, but a single sentence comic, is a couple of levels below his standard.

"See, there's three kinds of people: dicks, pussies, and assholes. Pussies think everyone can get along, and dicks just want to fuck all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your assholes, Chuck. And all the assholes want us to shit all over everything! So, pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes, Chuck. And if they didn't fuck the assholes, you know what you'd get? You'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in shit!"

The only concurrence between my parable and your Team America drivel is the pseudo-anthropomorphising symbolism of genitalia. Otherwise the two are dissimilar in tone and meaning. For example, re-read my parable replacing the word 'cunt' with Republican and the word 'cock' with Democrat (adjusting the final labia snap with a GSW)The Team America dross is unidimensional and sexist; created for the sniggering consumption of peri-pubescent Yankee males.

"Ad hominem" meant "self-evident argument" until the meaning was twisted by the Christians in 1793. Half a century later, Webster mistakenly included it in an early print of his An American Dictionary of the English Language in 1848 which is where the modern meaning comes from.

So hey guys does anyone know how porn stars have such clean, hairless taints? I really don't like ass hair but at the same time I don't want to have a razor blade or hot wax anywhere in that vicinity, any advice?

What the hell is this?

Welcome. This is a website called XKCD SUCKS which is about the webcomic xkcd and why we think it sucks. My name is Carl and I used to write about it all the time, then I stopped because I went insane, and now other people write about it all the time. I forget their names. The posts still seem to be coming regularly, but many of the structural elements - like all the stuff in this lefthand pane - are a bit outdated. What can I say? Insane, etc.

I started this site because it had been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans are too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them. This used to be called "XKCD: Overrated", but then it fell from just being overrated to being just horrible. Thus, xkcd sucks.

Here is a comic about me that Ann made. It is my favorite thing in the world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Divided into two convenient categories, based on whether you think this website

Rob's Rants

When he's not flipping a shit over prescriptivist and descriptivist uses of language, xkcdsucks' very own Rob likes writing long blocks of text about specific subjects. Here are some of his excellent refutations of common responses to this site. Think of them as a sort of in-depth FAQ, for people inclined to disagree with this site.